Star Wars Villains and How They Evolved After Disney Bought Lucasfilm by Cayenne Souknary

The Star Wars franchise was founded in 1975 by George Lucas, the writer and director of the first six movies. The Star Wars movies are separated into 3 different trilogies:

Original Trilogy, EP 4-6  (1977- 1983): A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi

The Prequels, EP 1-3 (1999-2005): A Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith

The Sequels EP 7-9 (2015-2019): The Force Awakens, The Last Jedi, and The Rise of Skywalker

The Original Trilogy follows Luke Skywalker in his quest to save the galaxy. He meets Obi-Wan Kenobi, Han Solo, Chewbacca, and Princess Leia, and together they all try to defeat the evil empire ruled by Darth Vader and Emperor Palpatine.

The Original Trilogy Villains

There are many notable villains throughout this trilogy like Jabba the Hutt or General Moff Tarkin, however, Darth Vader and Emperor Palpatine were the main consistent threats throughout the trilogy.

Darth Vader’s first appearance is him entering a rebel ship after his stormtroopers breached it. He walks in, and looks unfazed at the dead bodies that surround him before quickly moving on to carry out his goal, which is to find the stolen Death Star plans. The Death Star is a giant base that looks like a moon and can also destroy planets in a single beam, which Vader shows off to Princess Leia after she lied to him. (He destroyed her home planet.) In the first few scenes, the audience can already see that Vader is a ruthless villain and this is with him barely using his actual power of the force. When we actually see Vader fight in Return of the Jedi, we see how strong he is physically as a swordsman and with force.

However, Vader’s story is made more complex through the Prequels when it is revealed that all Anakin Skywalker (who was Darth Vader before he turned evil) wanted to do was save his mother and wife from dying, which was against the Jedi Code. He tried to achieve this by learning dark powers to try and stop his wife from dying, which was unsuccessful. After she died, his full transformation to the dark side was complete.

In the Original Trilogy, Vader finds out that Luke is his son, and makes it his goal to get Luke to join him on the dark side. In the end, Luke shows Vader there is still good in him and brings him to the light. So it makes sense that Vader would want Luke to join him because the last ever conversation Vader had with his wife was him asking her to join him in the dark side and her refusing to do so. In a way, this was like Vader clinging to the last remnants he had of Padme, his wife. And makes him a more complex character.

As for Palpatine or Darth Sidious, his motives are not as wholesome. His goal for the Original Trilogy was to convert Luke to the dark side and dispose of Vader after because of the rule of two. Also by converting Luke, he would have eliminated all known Jedi in the galaxy after Jedis Obi-Wan and Yoda die.

In the Prequels, it is explained that Palpatine’s goal was to kill all the Jedi to make way for Sith rule with him as the master and Darth Vader as the apprentice. (The Sith are the people who practice the dark side of the force.) The reason there are only two of them instead of having a Sith order is because the Sith believe in the Rule of Two which basically states that there can only be two Sith at a time and they may kill each other in order to assume the role. In order to kill the Jedi and start his own empire, Palpatine starts a war by creating two opposing political forces and plays for both using his politician persona and his Sith persona.

Palpatine’s origin story is that he killed his master. Have you ever heard the Tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise?

“I thought not. It’s not a story the Jedi would tell you. It’s a Sith legend. Darth Plagueis… was a Dark Lord of the Sith so powerful and so wise, he could use the Force to influence the midi-chlorians… to create… life. He had such a knowledge of the dark side, he could even keep the ones he cared about… from dying. […] He became so powerful, the only thing he was afraid of was… losing his power. Which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he taught his apprentice everything he knew. Then his apprentice killed him in his sleep. Ironic. He could save others from death, but not himself.” – Palpatine, Revenge of the Sith

Also in the OT, a lot of the villains are a lot more ruthless than in the other trilogies, just in the way they punish the other characters around them. For example, Darth Vader choked his officers who didn’t agree with him and Jabba froze Han Solo in carbon, as well as killed people for entertainment. These details develop the OT villains, and make them the best of the nine movies because they show off characteristics that make them appear less favorable than the protagonists and gets the audience hyped for the good guys.

The Prequels Villains

A lot of the OT lore is expanded upon in the Prequels by explaining Darth Vader’s backstory and also Palpatine’s. However, the prequels are full of even more villains than the OT because of how the Prequels expand from Episode I of the trilogy to the 7 season of the Clones Wars that happen before A New Hope. The two notable villains in the movie trilogy are Darth Maul and Count Dooku (also Palpatine, but he’s always a threat for some reason).

In the Prequels, Darth Maul is introduced as Darth Sidious’ apprentice and carries out villainous acts in the name of the Sith. Darth Maul’s epic appearance can be seen with him igniting his lightsaber, which is pretty standard for a Star Wars movie. But then he ignites the other side of the saber and it becomes a double edged sword. Character design wise, Maul is very interesting because he was a character with features that had not been seen before in the OT (his red face, horns, and a double edged sword).

Maul’s motive for everything is revenge because Obi-Wan cut his legs off in A Phantom Menace. Then a lot of stuff happens during the Clone Wars, where he gets his legs back and takes revenge on the Sith after Count Dooku replaced him (Rule of Two). And he also takes revenge on Kenobi or at least tries to. There’s a scene where he’s screaming in a desert after Kenobi. But, for the sake of the Prequels without the Clone Wars, most viewers just assume that he died in the first movie.

Count Dooku, Maul’s opponent, was once a Jedi and part of the Disaster Lineage, which is made up of in order Yoda, Dooku, Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, Anakin, and Ahsoka. The Disaster Lineage got its name because of the Master/Apprentice relationship each of the Jedi had in this line, but they break the Code. For example, both Dooku and Anakin turn to the dark side, Obi-Wan has an unclear romantic relationship, and Ahsoka leaves the order. He starts the trade federation with the support of Darth Sidious and starts to wage war on the Republic, not knowing that Chancellor Palpatine was his opposition.

He also works with General Grievous, who kills Jedi and collects their lightsabers as a battle trophy. Grievous isn’t like a major threat consistently in the film, but he does make multiple appearances during the Clone Wars and fights Obi-Wan countless times. His character is made more complex during the Clones Wars series, as opposed to just the Prequel Trilogy.

The character depth in the Sequel Trilogy that gets expanded on in the Clone Wars helps to build the universe in a way that makes it realistic in a sense that you get to see how other species around the galaxy live.

The Sequel Villains

Disney Takeover

In 2012, Lucasfilm was sold to Disney and George Lucas passed on leadership of all of Lucasfilm to Kathleen Kennedy, who had previously worked on other projects such as E.T. and Back to the Future. Lucas, of course, left behind possible sequel trilogy ideas before leaving, which Disney changed drastically. Originally, Kylo Ren was supposed to be a woman named Darth Talon from the Star Wars: Legacy comics, and she was to turn Skylar (Leia and Han’s son) to the dark side, but eventually Disney just combined the two into one character.

According to the SFFGazzette, in The Star Wars Archives – Episode I – III, 1999 – 2005, Lucas also said that his original plan was that “Darth Maul trained a girl, Darth Talon, who was in the comic books, as his apprentice. She was the new Darth Vader, and most of the action was with her. So these were the two main villains of the trilogy. Maul eventually becomes the godfather of crime in the universe because, as the Empire falls, he takes over.” Unfortunately, this didn’t happen because of the multiple writers and change in directors throughout the Sequel Trilogy.

The change in writers and directors is also why the Sequels also do not make sense in the canon since there were so many creatives involved in creating the story alone, none of which were consistent. According to WatchMojo, there are conflicted views on this, but it is easy to notice the difference between Lucas’ creative ideas as opposed to the current multiple and many creative heads that are in charge of the franchise today.

Disney’s Changes/What Makes A Disney Villain

According to a Vox article, Disney villains are easy to root for because they are relatable. Many people relate to villains because, “In fiction, villain characters let us vicariously express and indulge our “taboo” and “deviant” sides”. The article also talks about how Disney villains are marketable and how Disney caters to “fans of the bad guys, a stance it has increasingly leaned into over the last decade as it’s started to craft franchises around villains after defining itself by its princesses,” which can be seen in Kylo Ren, especially because they chose to cast an attractive man, which makes audiences more sympathetic to him.

Also in terms of marketability, the Clone Wars series had been going on since 2008, and was discontinued after Disney took over Lucasfilm, but there was hardly any merch for this series while it had been going on. It wasn’t until 2012 when there was a big boom in terms of Star Wars toys and merch that were easily accessible. This is because Disney is very good at marketing and producing toys in order to make more of a profit than just from ticket sales. The Clone Wars’ replacement was Star Wars Rebels, which had more recognizable characters such as Chopper. However, the Clone Wars was brought back in 2020 by Dave Filoni.

After Disney bought Star Wars, they changed the villains to be less complex and serve less of a purpose to the actual plot. Why? Disneyfication. And also because Disney likes to dumb things down for kids to understand, which feels like the company is underestimating their audience. Disney also copies what they know was successful and made money and uses that as a sure way to make more money. By doing so, Disney makes their new villains very shallow with no real meaningful motives. They do this in the Sequels by basically copy pasting Darth Vader/Anakin’s character into Kylo Ren.

Disney Star Wars Villain Analysis

The main antagonist in the Sequels is Kylo Ren, previously Ben Solo, son of Princess Leia and Han Solo. Kylo Ren’s goals in the sequels are to “finish what his grandfather started”, which was to fulfill his grandfather’s legacy or carry out the family reputation. In order to do this, Kylo builds a new Death Star named StarKiller Base, which also destroyed planets. He also rebuilds the Empire into a new thing called the First Order.

Kylo’s character is not very original as his whole thing is based off of Anakin Skywalker. Both of the characters wear masks and have voice changers within them, have long curly hair, and a scar on the same side of the face, which isn’t to say that Kylo Ren can’t, but the designers could have done something unique with him and chose not to. However, this design is something that Disney knows their audience is used to seeing as it is the same design as Anakin Skywalker (Kylo Ren’s grandfather), in the Prequels. In a way, Kylo’s whole personality is to be the emo, less put together, and more unhinged version of his grandfather. Kylo Ren’s character shows and also proves that Disney is incapable of coming up with anything original.

Disney also seems to refuse to stick to canon or bring up important character plot points. Kylo Ren also has his mini Order 66 when his uncle tries to kill him causing him to join the Knights of Ren, hence the name Kylo Ren. Unfortunately, Disney barely touches on the Knights, which would be integral to making his character more in depth. The Knights of Ren are an order of Grey Jedi meaning that they incorporate both teaching from the Jedi and the Sith into their principals and they serve no one. Kylo Ren is supposed to be one, however he isn’t? He was supposed to be their leader but he isn’t but still is? It’s not really touched upon and just fades off.

In terms of Kylo Ren as his own character (if you try to ignore Anakin Skywalker who is rolling around in his grave), he is not as scary or well put together as his grandfather or other Star Wars villains. For example, Kylo Ren is very prone to anger issues and is repeatedly shown destroying control panels aboard his ship in fits of rage. This may be the reliability factor that Disney goes for, but it does not show a good villain, but rather a spoiled child. Kylo Ren’s lightsaber fighting style, or all the lightsaber action in the sequels is very amateur. This may be because the actors were not as well trained in sword fighting as in the Prequels which is also in part because of Disney’s fast paced releases as opposed to Lucas’ 1 film every 3 years or so. Also according to a YouTube video essay on Why Lightsaber Duels Suck Now, the Sequel battles don’t have an emotional impact on the audience, which is true because of how lacking of emotion the movies already are. It just feels as though Disney was making movies just for the money, which they most likely were with the Sequel Trilogy

In the end of the trilogy, similarly to Darth Vader, Kylo Ren gets a redemption arc at the end where he dies in the name of good. (Its to save the protagonist) Going back to the statement about how Disney copies everything, the ending of the Rise of Skywalker is basically the same at Marvel’s Endgame in that the main characters think no one will help them fight the bad guys and then a whole bunch of people come out of nowhere and save the day. The ending is a cheesy and classic Disney ending.

General Hux, Kylo Ren’s first in command, is supposed to be the General Moff Tarkin equivalent, however, he isn’t. His entire existence is to serve the First Order and he can’t even do that properly because by the end of the trilogy, he betrays the First Order and joins the rebels, completely unwarranted. The set-up for this was not good and the twist came out of nowhere and there was no development into how or why Hux would be the spy for the rebels.

Captain Phasma is the captain of the stormtroopers on StarKiller Base and she also has no purpose other than to serve the First Order. She is gay though, and played by Gwendoline Christie. She is basically fanservice and serves no real purpose to the plot other than to be gay and kill and then die.

New Star Wars Villains (TV shows)

Recently Disney Star Wars has been redeeming itself because of the change in from multiple different people per movie to the now consistent Dave Filoni. However the new shows that Disney Star Wars are coming out with are not really new since they fall into the canon that was previously established by George Lucas. For example, the Young Jedi Adventures is a kids show set before the events of the Prequel Trilogy, which means that all these little kids will grow up to die in Order 66. However, after the Sequels, Disney Star Wars is doing well in terms of Star Wars Stories such as the Mandalorian or Kenobi.

Kenobi features the character Reva as one of the main threats (other than Darth Vader of course). Reva is part of the Inquisitors, who were actually Canon before this series which is why I think her villain story is actually good. Also Disney switched creative directors to someone who seems to care a lot more for the franchise than the last person. However, since this character was canon before Disney, I don’t think this really counts as her being fully a Disney Star Wars Villain.

Reva is the 3rd sister of the Inquisitors and her main goal during the Kenobi series is to kill Darth Vader. She has other responsibilities to attend to, but whenever she is presented with a chance to get close to Vader she takes it. At first it seems obsessive, but it is revealed during her fight with Vader that she feels that way because of how she was a survivor of Order 66 and how she blames Anakin who is now Darth Vader. This is a revenge plot on her part and it makes her a more well rounded villain by giving her a good origin story and showing her revenge through her actions and not just in her words or by randomly making it happen. Unfortunately, she is unsuccessful in this plot and Vader defeats her, which breaks her internally because of how she sees it similar to her dying during Order 66. This also adds to Vader’s character and shows how good (or bad) of a villain he is. He recognized her from Order 66 and still tries to kill her as he tried years ago, despite knowing how she moved ranks. It also shows how scary he is, which is played up a lot in other new Star Wars movies outside the sequels such as in Rogue One.

On the flip side of this villain improvement is Moff Gideon, who doesn’t really appear as a big threat in the Mandalorian. He’s just there and his presence is more of a minor inconvenience to the plot than it should be because he wields the dark saber, which doesn’t really get talked about. There is more expansion on the darksaber in the Clone Wars, but basically the swords can only be won in battle. Which is how he obtained the saber and also how Din (the Mandalorian) comes to own it after.

Gideon’s goal throughout the show is to restore power to the empire, which has just collapsed. In order to do this, he starts a secret science program to try and harness the power of the force via midichlorians in the child, Grugo (Baby Yoda). His story makes sense, but Disney just makes him shallow and not the best villain he could be.

Take Away

Disney changed the Star Wars franchise in the past decade by making the Sequel Trilogy and creating new villains for the new generation of protagonists to fight. However, there are noticeable changes from the franchise that George Lucas started and the franchise that is now Disney Star Wars and can be seen through in character depth and production quality. Production quality is very noticeable due to changes in creative vision and shortcuts in production and because of the deadlines that Lucasfilm has to meet in order to make Disney standard.

This raises the question, do fans (of any franchise) watch new movies because of what they expect it to be or for what it actually is? And do you think Disney is in the right for copying/stealing from their own franchises?

References

Caprisahn. “Why Lightsaber Duels Suck Now.” YouTube, 1 Mar. 2023, youtu.be/HCph3O_BE80?si=xYWldWBCx3dYwl2a.

JoshWilding. “Star Wars: George Lucas’ Sequel Trilogy Included Maul, Luke Rebuilding the Jedi Order, and a New Chosen One.” SFFGazette.Com, 28 July 2023, sffgazette.com/sci_fi/star-wars/star-wars-george-lucas-sequel-trilogy-included-maul-luke-rebuilding-the-jedi-order-and-a-new-chosen-one-a5706#gs.7l8en7.

Kain, Erik. “‘Star Wars: Rogue One’ vs. ‘The Force Awakens’ Which Is Better?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 22 Dec. 2016, http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2016/12/20/star-wars-rogue-one-vs-the-force-awakens-which-is-better/?sh=103c21201d5e.

“The Psychology of Disney Villains: Why We Love to Hate Them.” Disney Adulting, 6 Aug. 2023, disneyadulting.com/the-psychology-of-disney-villains-why-we-love-to-hate-them/#:~:text=Memorable%20Catchphrases%20and%20Songs,become%20 ingrained%20in%20our%20 memories. Accessed 29 Oct. 2023.

Roark, Nathaniel. “Top 15 Disney Star Wars Villains, Ranked Worst to Best.” ScreenRant, 23 Oct. 2023, screenrant.com/star-wars-disney-villains-ranked/#moff-gideon.

Romano, Aja. “Why It’s So Satisfying to Root for Disney Villains.” Vox, 28 May 2021, http://www.vox.com/culture/22453479/disney-villains-cruella-ursula-maleficent-scar-fans-jung-archetypes.

“Star Wars Sequel Trilogy.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 25 Oct. 2023, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_sequel_trilogy.

Taylor, Chris. “Secrets of the ‘Star Wars’ Drafts: Inside George Lucas’ Amazing — and Very Different — Early Scripts.” Salon, Salon.Com, 4 Oct. 2014, http://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/secrets_of_the_star_wars_drafts_inside_george_lucas_amazing_and_very_different_early_scripts/.

Tom, Written by. “The Decline of the Disney Villain.” The Bar Chaplain, 1 May 2023, http://www.barchaplain.com/?p=15581.

“Top 10 Ways Disney Changed Star Wars Forever.” YouTube, WatchMojo, 20 Dec. 2019, youtu.be/98ATUSNCdYE?si=rMbCXBlgKN_AJ0m4.

Disney Infinity by Brandon Leong

What in the world is a toys-to-life game? Toys-To-Life refers to video games in which toys can be purchased to be used in the video game, using a portal that scans the NFC chip located under the toy. This style of game was made popular by Skylanders: Spyro’s Adventure. Disney Infinity was announced in January 2013, and had a multiplatform release on August 18 the very same year. It was developed by Avalanche Software, the same developer of the Toy Story 3 movie tie-in video game. It was a toy-to-life game that used Disney IPs for characters and was $75 at launch.

Criticisms: Despite its name, Disney Infinity did not put an emphasis on classic disney properties and was more focused on Pixar IPs, which are Disney, but come on, out of the 29 characters released over half of the figurines released were Pixar characters. Too marketing centric – Disney Infinity was essentially used as the platform for shitty tie-in movie games – an example of this is that the Monsters Inc. playset isn’t actually Monster Inc., it’s Monster University (2013) – and does anyone remember the Lone Ranger? Gameplay was repetitive and boring. Right out of the box, playsets can’t be played co-op, you need to buy another figure compatible with the playset. Characters could only be played within their specific sets, for example Mr. Incredible cannot be played in the Pirates of the Caribbean set and Goofy can’t be played in the Incredibles set because Goofy isn’t in the fucking game. Speaking of Goofy, where’s Goofy? Where the fuck is Goofy? Where’s Donald? Where’s Minnie? Pluto? We don’t even have Mickey Mouse, sure we have Sorcerer’s Apprentice Mickey but it’s just not the same. Power disks were sold in blind bags, so you couldn’t see what was in them, they would contain minor things like vehicles, weapons, or terrain you could play with in the Toy Box. The thing about blind bags is that you can’t see what’s inside (go figure), so you can get doubles, which sucks. Disney Infinity launched on the WII, WII U, Playstation 3, and XBox 360, but did you know that it also launched on the 3DS?. On the 3DS it actually doesn’t play like the home console games, it’s a hastily cobbled party game, which quite frankly should not exist on a 3DS. Why does this exist?

1 year later, 2.0 released on XBox One, WII U, and Playstation 4. Following the explosion of the MCU, Disney Infinity became Marvel focused, and no Disney. They introduced a new mechanic called Cross Over Coins, where if you collect 10 coins you can use the character outside of its native playset. Unlike 1.0, the starter pack only came with one playset, the Avengers playset. There was an alternative Toy Box starter pack that came with Merida and Lilo, no playset but it gave you some Toy Box games, games created in the Toy Box mode.

New criticisms: The previous 1.0 playsets aren’t compatible with Disney Infinity 2.0. The game had frequent of frame drops and performance issues. This time there were only 3 playsets, all of them Marvel, and the playsets are now a lot shorter in content than previous. Why can’t you play as Spider-Man in the Avengers playset like come on that’s just cruel and unusual punishment and confusing.

It’s around 3.0 that Disney Infinity finally seemed to click – they had a greater variety and number of playsets that pulled from several places – Star Wars, Marvel, and Pixar playsets were all being made. For characters, Disney really started to dig deeper into their library for more classic offerings, like Baloo from the Jungle Book or Mickey Mouse – it took three goddamn games for them to add Mickey Mouse. Along with playsets, they also made more Toy Box Games, and everything was way more fleshed out and polished as well. And instead of there being plans for a new Disney Infinity 4.0 to be released next year, they instead decided to update and expand on 3.0, which was great! New content was being added, there were a ton of plans for the game, and the future looked bright! So what happened?

In May of 2016, just eight months after 3.0 had released, Disney announced “F*ck you, we’re shutting it down” and discontinued the Disney Infinity franchise, which was a huge shock to everybody because they just released new figurines along with announcing future plans for the project.

What makes it worse is that along with Disney Infinity, Disney shutdown not only Avalanche Software, but Disney Interactive Studios too in the process. From then on, Disney licensed out their games to other developers.

How Disney Is Losing Its Impact on Kingdom Hearts by Excalibur Henry

Kingdom Hearts is a collaborative video game created by Square Enix and Disney with 14 games that have been consistently released since 2002. It features an young boy, Sora, that travels through Disney world after Disney world in search of adventure, new friends, and ways to ward off the darkness. It’s the face of numerous memes, and is often quoted as one of the most confusing video games of all time.

With 14 games (and the 15th and 16th titles on the way) spanning over 21 years, Kingdom Hearts has a lot of surface area to cover in terms of the available properties to use in their games. However, with each title that releases, the influence of Disney (and even Square Enix characters) has slowly slipped away as Kingdom Hearts has begun to emphasize their original characters. Before there had been a decent combination of everything, but by Kingdom Hearts III (2019), all Square Enix characters with the exception of the Moogle shopkeepers had been omitted, and the Disney/Pixar worlds and their order of appearance have little to no relevance with the actual story.

In Kingdom Hearts (2002), the order that you visited the various Worlds was important, and every character that you interacted with held some kind of weight in the story. Many of the plot points in each World were inspired by the Disney movies, and oftentimes the original plot of the movies and Kingdom Hearts’ narrative complemented each other very well. This can be seen in Neverland, where Sora has his shadow removed by the antagonist and is forced to fight it (like how Peter Pan’s shadow seems to be a sentient being and Wendy helps him sew it back on). Sora also decides to jump off of Captain Hook’s plank after reflecting on how important it is to believe in himself, and how as long as he believes any dream that he has can become a reality. He then flies with the help of Tinkerbell’s pixie dust. This order of events really couldn’t have happened anywhere else with any other characters, and if it somehow did it wouldn’t have the same significance. It’s even important down to its position in the story—Neverland takes place as the last Disney world before the final world (that’s always an original), and Sora uses Peter’s message about believing to get him through the hardest moments he’s ever had to push through.

In Kingdom Hearts II (2006), Square Enix chose to split each World visit into 2 parts. The first visit usually followed the plot of the movies, where Sora stands back and watches most of everything happen until the very end, while the second visit usually builds upon that world, its characters, and involves the game’s original characters. Final Fantasy characters also started to make meaningful appearances that began altering the plot in their own ways. There was actually a decent balance between the original Disney movies and the plot lines that Kingdom Hearts added in, despite most of Sora’s impact coming in with the second visits. KH2 worked to incorporate Sora into the stories, as seen in the Pride Lands when Sora takes the appearance of a lion cub (with Donald and Goofy being a bird and a tortoise respectively) to fit in closer with Simba. However, Sora doesn’t have much impact until the second half, where he shares character development with Simba rather than building one for himself with tidbits here and there to help. This is also the last Disney world you visit, and the lesson that Sora learns about staying strong through adversity helps him through the game’s final segment and directly ties back to the opening arc.

By Kingdom Hearts III, all traces of Final Fantasy characters have been erased and the game instead pivots all focus onto its original characters. Instead of using only Disney properties, III has a focus on Pixar, but these Worlds feel soulless in comparison to the first game that practically required you to draw out maps to find treasure and really interact with the world around you. Sora goes through the Worlds and makes friends along the way, but the world order and plots could be swapped and it would make little to no difference on the narratives told in each one. Sora stands in the background awkwardly for the entirety of each narrative. For example, you visit San Fransokyo and help Hiro get the Heartless invasion under control. If Sora had never appeared, the story could’ve unfolded in the exact same way — Hiro would’ve done his tests, augmented his gear, and been able to fight everything off the same. The final showdown at the end of the World could’ve happened in any other world, and it wouldn’t make much of a difference. It also could’ve been positioned at any other point in the game and it wouldn’t matter very much. III relies entirely on its original characters to push the story on rather than letting the Disney aspects nudge everything in the right direction, a complete 180 from the first game.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why do you think Kingdom Hearts is slipping so far away from the Disney aspects of the game, despite that being what made it succeed so well in the first place? Do you think this can be attributed to them trying to adjust to a maturing fanbase, or is it something else?
2. How do you think the changes in Kingdom Hearts relate to the changes that happened/are happening in Disney Parks today?

For my creative project, I’d like to design an area of a Disney Park based on Kingdom Hearts! I’d focus more on the decorations/theming and the food rather than the rides though.

“Recitatif” Write Up by Grace Duncan

SUMMARY

“Recitatif”, acclaimed American writer’s Toni Morrison’s one and only short story, centers on the relationship between two girls, Twyla and Roberta.  Twyla is the first-person narrator in this case. The story begins with both girls being sent to a shelter called St. Bonaventure’s – St. Bonny’s for short – because of their mother’s afflictions (Twyla’s mother, Mary, “danced all night”, and Roberta’s was sick). One of them is white and the other is black. The narrator never specifies which is which. When they are first introduced, Twyla expresses that her mother wouldn’t like her rooming with someone of a different race. Twyla and Roberta don’t start off liking each other, but since they were the only children in the shelter who weren’t “real orphans” (their mothers were still alive, they just weren’t equipped to take care of them), they had to make do with each other. Despite this, they become fast friends. They both dislike The Big Bozo, also known as Mrs. Itkin, the main shelter worker throughout the piece. Twyla eats the leftover food off of Robertas’s plate. Roberta doesn’t like it because she is used to food of a higher caliber and Twyla’ mother didn’t feed her adequately. They are both failing the three classes they are made to take at the shelter. They are afraid of the older, tougher girls who bully the younger ones and hang out at an orchard near the shelter, from which Twyla and Roberta peer at them from afar.  The gar girls also bully a deaf, mute kitchen worker named Maggie. Roberta and Twyla follow suit by calling Maggie names. While Twyla reflects that St. Bonny’s wasn’t all that bad, she feels ashamed when she thinks of Maggie.

A day before Maggie falls in the orchard, the girls’ mothers come to visit them during a chapel service and lunch afterward. The girls pretend not to care, but they’re actually excited for their mothers to meet. When Mary comes, Twyla is ashamed of her mother for her inappropriate demeanor and her calling “Twyla, baby!”, but is also proud because her mother is pretty.   Upon approaching Roberta’s mother, decorated in with a huge cross and bible, Mary holds out her hand to shake, but Roberta’s mother refuses. Mary starts to make a scene, but Twyla squeezes her hand, and she just goes back to acting inappropriately during the service.   Twyla thinks her mother needs to be killed. Twyla’s mother did not bring Twyla lunch, so they had to pick jellybeans out of the grass. Roberta’s mother brings her a full lunch and reads the Bible to her as she eats. Twyla reflects that she became a waitress later in life to “give the right food to the right people”.

Eventually, Roberta leaves the shelter. Twyla promises to write to her, but Roberta never gives her address, and couldn’t read it anyway. Eventually Roberta fades from Twyla’s memory.

Sometime later, Twyla is working as a waitress and must serve Roberta, who is off to see the singer Jimi Hendrix with two male friends.  They recognize each other, but Roberta isn’t friendly. She makes fun of Twyla for not knowing who Jimi Hendrix is. Both of them say their mothers are fine. Twyla felt secure in her job and general life, but after the encounter with Roberta, she isn’t so sure of herself anymore.

Twelve years later, Twyla is living happily in a town called Newburgh. She is married to a man named James Benson, has a son named Joseph, and enjoys her husband’s large extended family. The older members of her husband’s family remember the former glory of the town, but now half its population is living on welfare. While on a trip to the grocery store, Twyla runs into Roberta, who remembers her, is friendly, and invites her for coffee. Twyla agrees but worries about the Klondike bars she left in her car. While getting coffee, the two catch up, and Twyla learns that Roberta is married to a rich widower with four stepdaughters. The two women get along much better this meeting, swapping memories and inside jokes. Twyla brings up the day Maggie fell in the orchard, but Roberta tells her it was actually the older “gar girls” that pushed her down. Twyla also brings up Roberta’s coldness in the restaurant twelve years ago, but Roberta attributes it to the tensions between Blacks and whites in the 1960s, nothing personal. Twyla remembers Blacks and whites seeming very friendly. Roberta leaves and promises to keep in touch, but Twyla knows she won’t. She keeps thinking about what really happened in the orchard with Maggie.

A few months later, Twyla learns that her son, Joseph, will be bussed to a new school for integration. She doesn’t mind at first, but then she isn’t sure how to feel. She drives up to her son’s new school anyway and discovers Roberta there with a group of picketers. They argue about the integration issue. Roberta says mothers have rights, and Twyla says she is a mother as well. Both women wonder what made them think the other was different. Roberta accuses Twyla of kicking Maggie – presumably a Black mute woman – all those years ago in St. Bonny’s orchard. Twyla denies kicking her and that Maggie was Black.  Roberta and the picketers end up attacking Twyla’s car, and are only halted when the police break it up.

The next day, Twyla starts picketing opposite Roberta.  The other picketers think she’s nuts because she keeps bringing in signs that target Roberta specifically, and not about the larger issue. Finally, she brings in a sign that says, “IS YOUR MOTHER WELL?” and Roberta stops coming. Because of the protesting school has been delayed until October.  As she tries to homeschool her son, Twyla thinks about Maggie. She knows she never kicked Maggie, but she can’t remember if she was Black or not. She realizes that it doesn’t matter because she wanted to kick Maggie and didn’t do anything to stop her from getting hurt.

The winter after her son leaves for college, Twyla is out shopping for a Christmas tree when Roberta shows up again, in a gown and slightly drunk. In tears, she confesses that she lied about the two of them kicking Maggie. She thought Maggie was Black, but now she is not so sure.  She says that they wanted to kick Maggie, and that wanting it was the same thing as actually doing it. Twyla tells Roberta never stopped dancing, and Roberta says in turn that her mother never got better. The story concludes with a crying Roberta wondering aloud what became of Maggie.

Acute and Chronic Tension

The chronic tension in Recitatif is namely the tension in white and black race relations in the 50s-70s America at the time, thus affecting the characters throughout their years. The acute tension is when Twyla and Roberta first get sent to St. Bonny’s, which is the catalyst for their relationship – the main crux of the story.

What Makes This Story Compelling

There are many, many features of this story that make it ultimately compelling, but if I went into them all, we’d be here all day – assuming you guys even read the thing. The most obvious one is that although we are told that between Twyla and Roberta, one is white and one is Black, it is never specified which.  This choice forces the reader to assign – if they even do so at all – which girl is Black and which girl is white through their own experiences and unconscious biases. It is no accident that they story winds over the mid 20^th century, a period in American history in which tensions between Black and white people were at an astronomical high.

To keep the ambiguity of whether either Twyla or Roberta are white or Black, Morrison had to charge the craft elements of the story to reflect the lack of specification, while ensuring that race was an important facet of it. One of these elements happens to be the dialogue. For the purposes of this story, all racial codes in the dialogue have been removed, but they still manage to imply that race is still quite pivotal to the story’s characters. Every word spoken between Twyla and Roberta, particularly in their later encounters, is layered with meaning. For example:  

“What are you doing?”

“Picketing. What’s it look like?”

 “What for?”

“What do you mean, ‘What for?’ They want to take my kids and send them out of the neighborhood. They don’t want to go.”

 “So what if they go to another school? My boy’s being bussed too, and I don’t mind. Why should you?”

 “It’s not about us, Twyla. Me and you. It’s about our kids.”

 “What’s more us than that?” “

Well, it is a free country.”

“Not yet, but it will be.”

 “What the hell does that mean? I’m not doing anything to you.”

“You really think that?”

 “I know it.”

“I wonder what made me think you were different.”

 “I wonder what made me think you were different.”

This instance of dialogue takes place during the protest scene, which is one of the heights of tension in the story. Although you can discern which woman is speaking (Twyla or Roberta) the longer you read it, I believe Morrison didn’t use a lot of tags (I.e., “I said,” “Roberta said”)  to purposely make the voices of the two women blur together, to almost make them indiscernible from each other. The last lines, spoken by both women: “I wonder what made me think you were different”, reveals the characters’ own prejudice towards members of their opposite race.  Still, it is not made clear which one is white and which is Black.  The dialogue is a crucial part of “Recitatif” because it reveals only what it wants to – and for the reader to fill in the blanks, they must reckon with their own bias.

Elements to Use in my Own Writing

Although it is about two girls of “opposing” races in a historical period of much injustice and tension, the author doesn’t actually tell us which girl is of which race, which prompts the reader to assign the races based on their own biases and assumptions.  This calls the reader out on their own unconscious faults and notions. I would like to do something like this in my own writing and keep that facet of the story – the ambiguous one that prompts the reader’s own assumptions – constant throughout the piece. I feel if I attempted something similar earlier in my writing journey, I would have revealed the races of the characters at the end in some big, facetious twist.  But knowing the context, I wouldn’t do that now, because that would defeat the whole purpose of the story.

Another element I’d like to snatch is the easiness of the language. Morrison describes only what she needs to, and doesn’t keep winding on like my writing tends to do sometimes. Twyla’s first person point-of-view also sheds light on the prejudice that her own character holds, and I would ultilize this to my own advantage. Morrison’s purpose – which I’m going to presume is overwhelmingly intended – is quite clear throughout the entirety of Recitatif. On the other hand, I’m not sure if I write my stories with a purpose, and if I do, it doesn’t come off the way I intended to, and instead becomes quite convoluted.

Writing Exercise

Write a story in which an important aspect of a character’s (or characters’) identity is not specified to the reader but is still referenced throughout the story to prompt the reader’s own unconscious prejudice.

Discussion Questions

1. How did you, as the reader, perceive the characters’ races in this story? Did you think Twyla was Black and Roberta was white, vice versa, or somewhere in between? What can you recognize about yourself based on how you categorized the characters’ races?
2. Do you believe Twyla’s conclusion about Maggie: that kicking her and wanting to kick her was the same thing? How would you apply this conclusion to your everyday life?
3. Do you believe Maggie was Black? If so, how could this change the perception of the story? If not, did this affect your reading?